Ryan's Toolbox

You might think that boundary setting is merely about curbing certain behaviors in your partner, but this model has significant weaknesses, particularly its finality and lack of clarity in cases of violation. Adopting my system will simplify and revolutionise how you engage in argument mediation and make promises to ourselves about how we want to be treated, or more accurately, how we think of and treat ourselves.

With my toolset, the next time we hear ourselves telling a partner how they must conduct themselves around us, or even worse, in our absence, the fragility of this controller state will become exposed. This realisation can prompt us to work towards a more direct and self-sufficient approach to boundary setting, surrounding ourselves with people who make us feel safe, even as we navigate our triggers that we know we would rather not have. 

Grey areas, yellow flags, considerate behaviour, unspoken etiquette, the 'ick'... Finding a definition for what you expect from your partner is difficult. It isn't sexy, but I help people break down their partner's behaviours whether real or perceived, and call out things that make us feel bad about them and decide what steps are available.

The only person we have control over, especially in some non-mono dynamics, is ourselves. I help clients move away from wanting to control others and learning to check personal values and apply distance in face of disrespect/ disregard.

I teach clients how to become self-sufficient in their boundary setting, and not put friends in difficult situations regarding the behaviour of your significant others. Non-monogamy isn't just about trusting others when it comes to attitude towards sex, it's about trusting friends to be able to make decisions about good and bad incoming behaviour.

I teach clients to derive ultimatums to start and stop certain behaviours in light of new information. Are you compromising too much? When someone cheats the game, you better change the rules.

I invite clients to think about tolerances in terms of upper and lower limits AKA tolerance thresholds. An (indirect) maximum would look like: "I feel better when my partner doesn't do (too much of) X". A minimum would look like: "I feel better when my partner does (enough of) Y". This is a key realisation that stops our partners straying from the path of safe behaviour, and helps them meet our model of what a loving relationship entails.

In every micro and macro action we do, there are four distinct steps. I help clients to recognise and achieve mindful control of each of these steps so that the externalisations are mannered and designed to achieve what we want from situation to situation.

Our senses tell us that something is happening. The experience may be internal - hunger, anxiety, regret - or external, such as hearing a partner say something or observing a behaviour. Sensory input is not always reliable; it is partial, filtered, and prone to distortion. A central question at this stage is whether we have gathered sufficient and accurate information.

Dialectical Behaviour Therapy is particularly relevant here. DBT skills support reality-testing, emotional regulation, and perspective-taking, which is especially important for individuals with disorganised attachment or heightened emotional reactivity. Careful attention to input allows the nervous system to hold off enough for accurate processing to occur.

Once information is received, it is processed through memory, personality, attachment history, and cognitive habit. Past experiences heavily shape how we respond, often outside of conscious awareness. I help clients challenge preconceived beliefs and step through thoughts and feelings in a conscious way to shine a light on better ways of consuming incoming signals.

This is where Cognitive Behaviour Therapy is most effective, helping clients notice assumptions, automatic thoughts, and entrenched interpretations that drive reactive or rigidified behaviour. Processing is not about suppressing emotion (that was Input), but about understanding how meaning is constructed from experience, and where that construction may be incomplete or inaccurate.

From this processing, the brain generates potential courses of action. These may be reactive primary impulse or a considered secondary response. I ask patients to summarise their strategies.

Therapeutic work here focuses on interrupting habitual tactical responses. By slowing this phase down, clients gain greater agency over which strategies could be deployed, rather than defaulting to familiar but unhelpful patterns.

Output is how our internal world becomes visible to others. This may be explicit, such as words or actions, or subtle, such as withdrawal, tone, or avoidance of eye contact. Relationships can only adjust to what is expressed.

The work at this stage involves helping clients evaluate the repercussions of their conclusions and reactions for more optimal resolution. This is difficult, but essential for relational repair and growth.

Under threat, humans tend toward fight, flight, freeze, or fawn. While all four responses are adaptive in survival contexts, only some are useful for evolving relationships. IPRO Theory offers a way to slow reactivity, increase choice, and replace automatic survival responses with deliberate relational action. Your limbic system will love you.

Gottman and Gottman remind us that strong couples don't argue less, they just argue better, that is to say, more constructively. I provide argument mediation techniques to enhance clients' communication skills. As soon as we understand that arguments involve a combo of unfortunate situation, action, and reaction, the sooner we can resolve for each component and build back stronger.

Not every action-reaction duality leads to an argument. Some reactions are swallowed, while others may escalate to retaliation or devolve into silent resentment. However, when two people engage in argument mediation by expressing their defence of their actions or preferences, the potential for a conflict arises. Ultimately, resolution can only be achieved through forgiveness, remedy, or obliteration (forgetting). As for how to prevent issues in the future, that's more complex.

Since an argument is made of action and reaction (and situation), the apology of the actor too must be made of two types of feelings: being sorry for one's actions and being sorry that the reactor is reactive (and being sorry for the original situation). I coach clients through argument mediation to identify the ratio at which the behaviour and trigger causes upset, as well as the balance at which the apology expresses regret for the action and empathy towards the affected party's trigger.

Arguments are influenced by the past, present, and future of a couple, which can be complex to navigate. By utilising my flowchart, couples can engage in effective argument mediation to better understand their position within this intricate system.